Propertymark – Government must understand the cost of pets to Landlords

Propertymark – Government must understand the cost of pets to Landlords

16:08 PM, 5th July 2022, About a month ago 21

Text Size

Propertymark has conducted a joint online survey with the NRLA, LandlordZone and pets charity AdvoCATS indicating how common pet damage is and how difficult the costs are to recover in the PRS. Click here

Out of 537 respondents (this would be skewed due to the nature of the survey) 85.3% of landlords had incurred damage by pets. This is a similar percentage to damage by the tenants themselves, but the extent of the damage is much greater and the cost harder to recover due to the limitations imposed by the tenants fees ban. Only 57% of landlords were able to recoup the cost of pet damage.

The group is campaigning for an addition to the List of Permitted Payments giving landlords the option to request a financially capped pet deposit or stipulate that pet damage insurance must be held by any tenant wanting to keep a pet or pets.

Timothy Douglas Head of Policy and Campaigns for Propertymark said: “The data from this research backs up what Propertymark and others have been warning for some time, that the unintended consequences of the Tenant Fees Act have reduced the appetite for many landlords to take on the greater risk of damage.

“With the demand for pet-friendly homes continuing to increase, the UK Government must now understand the costs involved for landlords and implement rules that support the sector to take on greater risk in order to support more people to rent with pets.”

NRLA Policy Manager James Wood said: “With many landlords unable to recover damage caused by pets, it is no surprise that landlords generally prefer to let to tenants without pets. Particularly those with smaller portfolios who are not able to absorb the losses caused by damage.

“If the UK Government is to increase the supply of pet-friendly homes then it is vital that landlords and agents have confidence they can recover the cost of repairs. Amending the Tenant Fees Act to permit pet insurance or pet deposits would provide this confidence and give tenants with pets more options in the private rented sector.”



Comments

Ian Narbeth View Profile

16:30 PM, 5th July 2022, About a month ago

As I explained here pet insurance taken out by the tenant will not be good enough.

David Smith

12:27 PM, 6th July 2022, About a month ago

Has it been mentioned that a leasehold Property with a No Pet / Animal clause in the Superior lease is exempt from the new proposed changes.

Jonathan Cocks

12:28 PM, 6th July 2022, About a month ago

If landlords have to accept pets (what is the definition of a pet in a rented property), and I’m not convinced that this is going to be a requirement, do you think we should be allowed to require more than a five weeks rent deposit.

Or is this something insurance companies would allowers to include in our landlords insurance policy.

Ian Narbeth View Profile

12:33 PM, 6th July 2022, About a month ago

Reply to the comment left by David Smith at 06/07/2022 - 12:27
No, because it won't be. The superior landlord will be under the same obligations as the immediate landlord.

Ian Narbeth View Profile

12:36 PM, 6th July 2022, About a month ago

Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Cocks at 06/07/2022 - 12:28
"If landlords have to accept pets ..., and I’m not convinced that this is going to be a requirement"
What is the basis for your optimism? The requirement is set out in the White Paper! The train is coming down the tracks at you.

The NRLA will be asking the Government to allow increased deposits. I am not hopeful that a meaningful increase will be allowed.

Mick Roberts View Profile

12:46 PM, 6th July 2022, About a month ago

My repeated notes on this:

Gees, how simple was it when we could just charge higher deposit for Pet owners and those that did no damage got all money back. So so simple.
No better insurance than the tenants own money.
Now look what Shelter and Generation rent and the Govt have done. Made it MUCH MUCH worse for tenants yet again.
My text below I’ve done before.

Landlords: pets are okay if you pay for extra insurance to cover any damage.
Gov: in that case we will make it illegal to charge extra insurance.
LLs: well then we will have to slightly increase deposits for those with pets.
Gov: in that case we will cap deposits at 5 weeks rent.
LLs: okay well we can’t really allow pets anymore then.
Gov: in that case we will force you to take tenants with pets.
LLs: well then we have no choice but to increase rent across the board even for tenants without pets.
Gov: oh.
Tenants: why is rent so high??

Unbelievable isn't it. If the tenant was allowed to pay a higher deposit to cover potential pet damage. And if the pet caused no damage, tenant gets deposit back, job done.
That way only those that caused damage, ie. 10% would pay for THEIR OWN DAMAGE.
The way Govt have it now is, EVERYONE loses. And now this horrendous reaction of pets now losing their lives.
U would think the Govt and Councils would actually talk to us on ground level to ask what we think. As they ALWAYS get it wrong and us in the actual job get it right cause we doing it day in. day out.

We all know what happened with scrapping Pet deposits and we told em it would happen. Now ALL pet owners pay more rent whereas before, if no damage, no charge. Now an unfair charge on every pet owner. And they've got Shelter and the others to thank for that.
Again this shows Govt interference trying to appease voters, the renters thinks Whey Hey Great! Whereas we know they end up worse off.

David Smith

12:49 PM, 6th July 2022, About a month ago

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 06/07/2022 - 12:33
Has that been confirmed?

Ian Narbeth View Profile

12:59 PM, 6th July 2022, About a month ago

Reply to the comment left by David Smith at 06/07/2022 - 12:49
David, it is inherent. A superior landlord is a landlord.

If a prohibition in a superior lease allowed a landlord to ban pets, that would provide an easy way for landlords to circumvent the new rules.

David Smith

13:29 PM, 6th July 2022, About a month ago

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 06/07/2022 - 12:59
Thanks!
Your answer would seem conclusive.

Dylan Morris

11:31 AM, 7th July 2022, About a month ago

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 06/07/2022 - 12:59
I agree. The banning of pets in the head lease has to be adhered to, otherwise the situation in a block of flats will be ludicrous, in that a person privately renting will be allowed a dog whereas an owner occupier will not.

1 2 3

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now